Jump to content

Talk:And did those feet in ancient time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on And did those feet in ancient time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And did those feet in ancient time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn after consensus that MOS:INCIPIT applies. No such user (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


And did those feet in ancient time → And Did Those Feet in Ancient Time – Per MOS:TITLECAPS. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 23:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis of the contestation, Sam Sailor? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the title has been stable for years (move log), and I think it is a MOS:INCIPIT case; it is better to get some input from other editors. Sam Sailor 01:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: Stability isn't itself a rationale for contestation, but that's a fair point about MOS:INCIPIT. I'd be happy to withdraw my proposal on that basis. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

emerson lake and palmer

[edit]

A fine group, but is it really necessary to refer to them to here, and at such length ? (Pamour (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Dark Satanic Mills

[edit]

I recall reading somewhere a suggestion that this alludes to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That certainly accords with Blake's worldview, and IMO makes a great deal more sense than the factories speculation; but something WP:RS is needed. Narky Blert (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall reading something similar, probably in early 20C criticism because I haven't read much after that (maybe Ackroyd proposed it and that was mentioned in review. Certainly a more controversial interpretation than the agrarian-socialist spin. cygnis insignis 12:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or Blake himself really. If the whole preface is included, and I think that is clear enough Milton, preface. cygnis insignis 13:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake himself made it clear that the `Dark Satanic Mills' were Lambeth Palace and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the chief founts of Orthodox C-of-E doctrine which he, of course, refuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:B685:5E00:E126:2862:472C:6430 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is some tale about a satanic mill, 'Krabat'. The mill is the mill of fortune ( qv Tarot card game ). Whenever the miller would have lost the game, he instead sacrifices one of the bachelors. Makes much more sense in a religious context than those machines from eg Jackboots on Whitehall, doesn´t it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:697F:0:992E:67B:51BC:9621 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation by King George V

[edit]

I don't doubt the statement that George V said he liked Jerusalem better than God Save the King. However, he does not seem to have said anything at all about its potential as a national anthem; if he had, it would certainly have become a very famous remark. (He may also have liked dozens of other tunes more than he liked God Save the King.) I write this not to try to create a forum-like argument, but to question whether his words might be receiving undue weight in this article. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Amanda Gilroy argues that the poem ..."

[edit]

I don't have Gilroy's book. The statement about her opinion is ambiguous: "the poem" could be referring to "And did those feet...", or to the entire two books of "Milton". In the context in which it's been placed in this article, the distinction matters. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(This is found under "Text" / "Green and Pleasant Land") TooManyFingers (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blake does not name the walker on "Englands green and pleasant land"

[edit]

And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon Englands mountains green: And was the holy Lamb of God, On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

This is clearly stating to any Christian that he means Jesus Christ, who is the Lamb of God. This is beyond dispute. It is a title used for Jesus in John 1:29 where John the Baptist sees Jesus and exclaims, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." and appears throughout the Bible. Please correct this error. 195.213.109.250 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the whole song is a piss-take at the establishment and Blake frequently used allegory and dual meanings, so there is plenty of scope here for multiple allusions within the same terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time&oldid=1249760168"